Health risk identification of typical groundwater using bioassays and chemical methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The toxicity and associated health risks of typical contaminated groundwater were evaluated using bioassays, the SOS/umu test and the micronucleus assay, with a comparison of identified risks based on bioassay and chemical methods. An analysis of 15 water extracts showed that a lifetime cancer risk (LCR) value of 10−6 was recorded for 47% of water extracts. These results indicated that some water extracts did not exhibit toxicity when analysed using one type of bioassay, yet they indicated high toxicity when analysed using another method. Our results also demonstrated that the LCR values from bioassays were generally greater (2.4-foldmax) than those derived from chemical analysis, a finding indicating that risks can be underestimated or false-negative results can be obtained when only chemical-based methods or even just one bioassay is used. This study suggests that the use of multiple bioassays should be considered to be an efficient method and a comprehensive method should be established for risk assessment. Our findings also suggest that groundwater and freshwater in the studied area might pose significant health risks and exhibit toxicity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".